The Overturning of Roe: How We Got Here, What to Do Now, and What Comes Next

More than 400 members of the Bryn Mawr community registered for last week’s virtual teach-in on “Reproductive Rights After Roe.”

Those who were able to attend the event heard from a panel of experts who, over the course of 90 minutes, touched on everything from the social and legal history of abortion in America, to the disproportionate impact the Dobbs ruling will have on people with lower incomes and people of color, to the fight for abortion rights now happening at the state level. Professor of History Sharon Ullman started the discussion by presenting some general historic context.

Ullman noted that there were no laws against abortion in the colonial period or at that time of the writing of the Constitution and that the first law against abortion didn’t appear until 1821 in Connecticut. By 1900 all states had banned abortion.

“There are two big drivers at play at this time,” said Ullman. “You have the professionalization of medicine and the policing of women’s bodies, and immigration and the falling white birth rate.”

According to Ullman the birth rate for white women in the United States fell from an average of seven children in the 1800s to 3.5 in the early 1900s.

“White supremacy and playing on the fears of the ‘other’ has always been a part of the abortion debate,” said Ullman.

Ullman went on to talk about the modern abortion debate in the United States, the legal aspects of which were covered in greater detail by the next speaker, Linda Wharton ’77.

Wharton is a professor of political science at Stockton University and former managing attorney at the Women’s Law Project and co-lead counsel in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In talking about the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, which had established a constitutional right to an abortion, Wharton described it as, “an extremely measured opinion” that was “restrained and methodical" and “grounded in precedent.”

She also pointed out that the 7-2 decision was made by a majority-conservative court as was the case she took part in, 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In contrast, Dobbs, which she characterized as “poorly reasoned, disdainful in tone and outside the norms of mainstream constitutional analysis,” illustrates how “radicalized the current Court majority has become.”

The next speaker of the evening was Mindy J. McGrath '00, senior director of policy and communications at the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, who provided an overview of abortion rights at the state level in the wake of Dobbs, the disproportionate impact on people who already experience systemic barriers to care, and thoughts on what individuals can do now.

“If you can, donate to your local abortion fund and/or your local practical support fund. Whether you live in a state hostile to abortion rights or one that is protective, there is going to be a need that these funds are well-positioned to meet,” said McGrath.

One thing McGrath advised against is individuals starting their own “auntie networks.”

“There are groups that have been preparing for this moment for decades. They have the infrastructure in place to keep people seeking abortion services safe. Please plug into their structures rather than trying to start your own”

Tamarah Moss, assistant professor of social work and social research, raised questions and concerns for patient communities, caregivers, as well as health and mental health providers. Moss highlighted the importance of intersectional identities of people who can become pregnant, especially adolescents, LGBTQ+ members, Black people, and people of color.

“What is going to be considered a medical emergency in states that have bans or restrictions?” Moss asked.

Sue Frietsche '77, founder of the Western PA office of the Women’s Law Project and senior counsel, closed the evening's prepared remarks by talking about what life is like for those working on the front lines to provide abortion care.

“We have never been challenged like we are today,” she said. “Some of our providers are opening at six in the morning and closing at 10 at night.”

Frietsche, and many of the other speakers, talked about the need to shore up constitutional protections at the state level, noting that in Pennsylvania there are several Senate bills making their way through the legislative process that would restrict access to abortion services.

The event ended with a brief Q&A during which many spoke about the long road ahead for those hoping to see the restoration of a federal right to abortion.

“If we want to look for model, we’ve just seen it,” said Ullman. “We have to be ready to be in this for the long haul and to have an electoral and judicial strategy at every level of government.”